Legalpedia Citation: (2013) Legalpedia (SC) 11171
In the Supreme Court of Nigeria
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Thu Dec 19, 2013
Suit Number: SC. 169/2012
CORAM
PARTIES
1. KAYODE BABARINDE2. AKEEM HARUNA3. YUSUF NURUDEEN APPELLANTS
THE STATE RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants were charged before the High Court on a two-count charge of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and armed robbery contrary to Section 97 of the Penal Code and Section 1 (2) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act . Each of the Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution called three witnesses and tendered exhibits, the Appellants each testified on their own behalf and called no witness. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial judge found each of the accused persons guilty as charged on each of the counts. They were sentenced to two years imprisonment on the count of conspiracy and death by hanging on the count of armed robbery. Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence pass on them they appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld conviction and sentence passed on them by the trial court. They now appeal to this Court.
HELD
Appeal Dismissed
ISSUES
Whether the alleged bias against the appellants by the learned trial Judge in the course of the trial within trial ought to have vitiated the entire trial? Whether the appellants ought to have been discharged and acquitted upon the finding of the Court of Appeal that Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 were wrongly admitted in evidence Whether the offences of conspiracy and armed robbery were proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
TRIAL WITHIN TRIAL-PURPORT OF
“A trial within trial is a complete process in itself within the substantive trial. The trial court halts the main trial to conduct a mini trial specifically to determine whether or not a confessional statement allegedly made by an accused person was made voluntarily”.
CONSPIRACY-MEANING OF-HOW PROVED
“It is trite that conspiracy is seldom proved by direct evidence. In Obiakor Vs The State (2002) 6 SC (Part II) 33 @ 39 – 40 this court held, per Kalgo, JSC:
“Conspiracy as an offence is the agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. The actual agreement alone constitutes the offence and it is not necessary to prove that the act has in fact been committed. Because of the nature of the offence of conspiracy, it is rarely or seldom proved by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence and inference from certain proved acts.”(Emphasis mine)
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY-NATURE OF PROOF REQUIRED
“On the nature of proof required to establish criminal conspiracy, Achike, JSC had this to say in Oduneye Vs The State (2001) 1 SC (Part I) 6 -Z:
“A conviction for conspiracy is not without its inherent difficulties. … a successful conviction for conspiracy is one of those offences predicated on circumstantial evidence which is “evidence not of the fact in issue but of other facts from which the fact in issue can be inferred. …Evidence in this connection must be of such quality that irresistibly compels the court to make an inference as to the guilt of the accused.” (Emphasis mine)
IDENTIFICATION PARADE-WHEN NOT NECESSARY
“It is not in every case that an identification parade must be held to determine the identity of the persons (s) who commit a-crime. For instance where a suspect is caught at the scene of crime or at a place closely connected with the scene of crime, it would not be necessary to conduct an identification parade. It would also not be necessary where by his confession, an accused person identified himself or where there is circumstantial evidence showing his involvement in the commission of the offence”.
EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE WITNESS-WHEN SUFFICIENT TO GROUND A CONVICTION
“It is trite that the evidence of a single witness could be sufficient to ground a conviction where the evidence is credible, cogent and of high quality so long as the evidence is not required to be corroborated”.
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS BY LOWER COURTS-ATTITUDE OF APPELLATE COURT-WHEN CAN INTERFERE THEREWITH
“Where there are concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts, this court would not interfere unless the appellants can show that the findings are perverse, not supported by the evidence, that there is a wrongful application of the law or that there has been a miscarriage of justice”.
ARMED ROBBERY-WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE TO SECURE A CONVICTION
“With respect to the charge of armed robbery, the law is settled that in order to secure a conviction the prosecution must prove the following beyond reasonable doubt:
a. That there was a robbery or series of robberies.
b. That each of the robberies was an armed robbery.
c. That the accused person was one of those who took part in the armed robbery”.
WITNESSES-WHETHER A PARTY IS BOUND TO CALL EVERY AVAILABLE WITNESS
“The law is quite well settled that it is not every available witness that must be called to testify in a case so long as those who do testify are able to discharge the burden of proof in the case being made out by a party. In other words, the evidence of the witness or witnesses in a criminal trial must be sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt”.
CONTRADICTIONS-NATURE OF CONTRADICTION THAT WILL BE FATAL TO THE PROSECUTIONS CASE
“The law is that it is only material contradictions in the case before the prosecution that will raise a doubt, the benefit of which ought to be resolved in favour of the accused. It is only contradictions that are substantial and fundamental to the main issue in question that would be fatal to the prosecution’s case. For a contradiction to be material it must not only relate to a material fact, it must in addition lead to a miscarriage of justice”.
CASES CITED
Adelarin Lateef & Ors. Vs F.R.N. (2010) 37 WRN 85 @ 107|Jimoh & Anor. Vs The State (2011) LPELR-4357 (CA) 1 @ 19 – 20|Ikemson Vs The State f1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.llO) 455:|Ebenehi Vs The State (2008) 10 NWLR (Pt.1096) 596 at 607|Ioweao Vs Ezeuqo (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.249) 561: (1992) 7 SCN3 284:|Okoye Vs Obiaso (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1195) 145:|Cameroon Airlines Vs Otutuizu (2011) 1 – 2 SC (Pt. Ill) 200.|Bozin Vs The State (1985) 2 NWLR (8) 465;|Afolalu Vs The State (2010) 16 NWLR (Pt.1220) 584;|Eke Vs The State (2011) 3 NWLR (Pt.1235) 589:|Bello Vs The State (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 564.|Aliyu Vs The State (2013) LPELR-SC,104/2011 @ 18 B – G:|Akalonu Vs The State (2002) 6 SC (Pt.II) 107 @ 112 – 113:|Alonqe Vs I.G.P. (1959) 4 F.S.C. 203|Dibie Vs The State (2004) 14 NWLR (Pt.893) 257 at 280 A – D:|Ikemson Vs The State (1989) 2 NSCC (Vol. 20) 471:|Onubogu Vs The State (1974) 1 All NLR (Part II) 5:|Okonji Vs The State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt.52) 659:|Shurumo Vs The State (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.1218) 65 & 81|Patrick Njovens Vs The State (1973) 5 SC 17|Dabo & Anor. Vs The State (1977) 5 SC 22;|Kaza Vs The State (2008) 1 – 2 SC 151 @ 164 – 165:|Onyenye Vs The State (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt.643) 1810
STATUTES REFERRED TO
The Evidence Act 2011|